I didn’t intend to post about this, but people keep asking me what I think, so I guess I need to get something up. For starters, you should read Michael Korcuska’s post on the subject. I agree with everything he says. Beyond that, here’s what I think:
Let’s start by trying to figure out just what the heck Blackboard is talking about. This isn’t easy. As usual, they’ve made grandiose promises with not a lot of detail. But if you look at their latest Blackboard NG video, there are hints. Chapter 3 of the video shows a mock-up of their integration. What they explicitly talk about amounts to (a) links to courses in other systems (which you can do with, say, a portlet), (b) single sign-on between those systems, and (c) the ability to call up the other system within the Blackboard navigation via an iframe. Of these pieces, (a) and (b) are simply portal-like capabilities (people have done the same thing with both Sakai and Moodle using uPortal as the integration point, for example), while (c) is cheesy, ugly, and mostly useless. Now, if you look closely at the video, you’ll see that they also have mocked up (but don’t talk about or demonstrate) pulling notifications like announcements out of the other systems and displaying them on the dashboard. Again, this is basically portal capability. It’s a good idea, but it’s hardly revolutionary. Also, because there are no standards for getting this stuff out of different LMSs, Blackboard will have to build point-to-point integrations with each system. These sorts of things are inherently fragile and expensive to maintain. In contrast, if something like Cambridge’s Sakai SData project were to evolve into a cross-platform standard, then you could pull the data that Blackboard is making such a big deal about out of any platform and put it into any other platform (including Facebook, Page Flakes, iGoogle, or whatever) and you could reliably re-use the code to integrate with multiple systems.
In addition to the video, we know that Blackboard has been very active in the IMS Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) initiative. My take is that LTI is intended to be a cross-platform replacement for Building Blocks. Now, why would Blackboard want to support such an initiative? Right now, they have the advantage of having more vendors build tools for them because of their market share. If there is a cross-platform standard, then they give up this advantage. So it makes no sense for them to push LTI, right? Except that their various tools — Blackboard Content, Blackboard Outcomes, Blackboard Community, Blackboard Virtual Poker, etc. — could be integrated via LTI into other systems. In one stroke, they become add-on tool vendors for every other LMS.
So. How is one supposed to feel about these efforts? If the picture above is accurate, then neither of these two parts is particularly evil. The way they’re going about the first one is typical Blackboard go-it-alone stupidity in the approach, but there’s nothing inherently damaging about it (unless there’s another patent application somewhere that we don’t know about). Blackboard is using the first part to stanch the bleeding as customers bolt their platform and the second one to make sure they have stuff to sell even to schools that have already bolted the platform, but I don’t have any problem with commercial motives as long as the actions don’t hurt the choices for universities and, ideally, actually act to enhance them. We should take Blackboard’s grandiose pronouncements and easy-to-fake mock-ups with a healthy portion of salt until product is delivered, but I don’t see anything here to be scared about.
How should the open source communities react to this? I’m not that close to the Moodle community at the moment, so let me focus on Sakai. As long as neither Blackboard nor Syracuse (the university that is partnering with Blackboard on Sakai integration) is asking the community for resources beyond the technical advice that anyone can request on the listserv, then I don’t see why the Sakai community should care. The IMS work is good (if the end result is a good spec) and the other stuff isn’t bad (based on what we know so far). If the integration helps meet the needs of particular Sakai-adopting institutions, then fine.
However, if it should come to pass that Blackboard and/or their integration partners do need substantial material support for Blackboard-specific integration (as opposed to integration via a standard from IMS or some other body), that is another matter. I would like to see the Foundation Board issue a pro-active statement that Foundation resources (whether development and QA consulting or even PR and promotion) will not be committed to any Blackboard-specific integration as long as Blackboard is asserting an educational software patent against another company. This would be consistent with the Board’s previous positions on the patent, it would not prevent Syracuse from meeting its local needs (or prevent individual Sakai-adopting institutions from helping them if they so choose), and it would assure the Sakai community that their membership dues would not be going toward helping a company whose actions the community has very actively opposed.
Michael F. – I *love* this post – I also love Michael K’s post as well. The dialog is getting to the real meat of the matter.
The Sakai Community and the Sakai Foundation are not one and the same. I sort-of like your suggestion that the Foundation not invest any *Foundation* resources in helping make something “non-open” happen. However, members of the community can do whatever they decide to do.
However I think that it would be wrong for the Foundation to make such a strong statement completely closing the door on any interaction because of the patent.
Back when I was the Sakai Executive Director, I felt that it was very important to engage potential stakeholders in the Sakai product and community regardless of their use of patents or the openness of their source. Because I felt that open source should be open – open source should be an example of how to win without being protectionist.
Under this principle that I gave to myself – I engaged in many discussions with a number of companies who are notorius for having and using patents and for keeping their source closed. And I even talked to them under NDA terms to help align their strategies w.r.t. Sakai internally before making external commitment statements.
These “bad” companies include: Oracle, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, and others. Also some of the academic members of Sakai hold nasty little patents – I think one of these academic patents is in the top 10 villains on the EFF patent busters effort – but we let Sakai resources benefit Universities that hold and exploit patents that cover our space.
My perspective was that it was not my place to just “good companies” and “bad companies”. Some members of the Sakai Foundation Board and Sakai Community were often concerned when I initially engaged each of these companies as the ED. But overall after a while people relaxed and realized that nothing bad happened to us by talking to Oracle – that we effectively were protected because we were “open” and as long as Sakai stayed true to its own values – consorting with Oracle or Microsoft did not change our values.
And actually working with Oracle has had wonderful benefits – both to Sakai and to the market in general – your leadership in the IMS Learner Information Service – is awesome – Oracle’s investment in a public good is much appreciated – at least by me.
I never look at corporate decisions as “good” or “evil” – they are either “smart” or “dumb”. I think that Oracle’s decision to engage in Sakai and IMS is “smart”. I think that BlackBoard’s engagement of open source is “smart”. I think that BlackBoard’s work in IMS Tools Interoperability is “smart”. I think that the way BlackBoard granted patent immunity to Open Source is “smart”. I think that the way BlackBoard pursued the D2L patent is “dumb”. Not “evil” – not “good” – just “dumb”.
I think that the market impact of the “dumb” BlackBoard decision has already caused negative consequences to BlackBoard – I think some of your earlier posts about dwindling market share are best explained as the results of management mistakes made by BlackBoard. I actually trust the market to punish “dumb” things and reward “smart” things – so my opinion really does not matter.
If I am asked – I always tell companies what I think the “smart” choice should be. I always preface my advice with the following variant of Sarbanes-Oxley: “Thanks for asking for my opinion on this matter, just so you know – I am just a humble academic with no real business experience, but if I were facing this decision, I would ….”
Chuck, it’s not a question of “good companies” vs. “bad companies” or “good” vs. “evil”, but it is a question of harmless behavior vs. harmful behavior. The assertion of an educational software patent (as opposed to the mere owning of one) is harmful to the educational community, which is presumably why the Foundation engaged with the SFLC to fight the patent in the first place. This isn’t just every-day competitive behavior, either. It is precisely anti-competitive behavior. And as long as Blackboard is exhibiting harmful and anti-compatitive behavior, the company should not be rewarded with community support. The minute Blackboard stops exhibiting harmful behavior, the prohibition is lifted.
If the Foundation doesn’t take a clear stand, then Blackboard can and probably will use the Board’s silence to argue that the company is “collaborating” with “Sakai”. That should not be permitted when Blackboard is still asserting the patent, a behavior that the Foundation has strongly opposed.
Michael – I do admit that I take a different view than many when it comes to Open Source organizations versus Commercial organizations.
It is probably because I personally have taken the wrong conclusion from the fable of the Scorpion and the Frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog). Most would conclude from the fable that the Frog should never trust the Scorpion. Perhaps a corollary would be for the Frog to never talk to Scorpions. Or perhaps the Frog should proclaim bold public statements about the badness of the Scorpion.
My somewhat warped conclusion is that the best approach is to be immune from Scorpion stings if at all possible. Because the Scorpion can sting you any time – even when there is no cooperation agreed to by the frog.
Because of this conclusion, I am probably more tolerant than most when commercial organizations are just doing “commercial organization things”. On the other hand, I am also more critical than most when it appears that Open Source organizations start to do “commercial organization like things” because I believe that the core values and tenets of Open Source – whether it be GPL values or Apache values – are what protect you from Scorpion stings and allow you to be safely near Scorpions. Note: I am not just talking about the license here – I am talking abut the culture as well.
Refusing to listen or talk when the Scorpion comes up and starts talking – is generally a poor strategy for avoiding scorpion stings.
Sorry to slip into metaphor – it is a bad habit of mine. 🙂
“The assertion of an educational software patent (as opposed to the mere owning of one) is harmful to the educational community”
Why is that harmful? Oh right because Universities shouldn’t have to pay for anything and everything should be free.
Nice try! A uni like MIT or Berkeley are making millions a year off their patents but continue to charge so much for tuitition that it puts an education out of the reach of normal, everyday people.
You’re hate against Blackboard has clouded your judgement against the big picture. Education is out of reach for millions of US Citizens. Blog about that. Use your position to make a positive change so that some kid in the Rust Belt can break the poverty cycle and better himself.
Steven, you are obviously not a regular reader. Otherwise you would know that I have complained repeatedly about the universities’ hypocritical positions on patents. You would also know that I have repeatedly made clear that I don’t “hate” Blackboard; I object to their particular actions around edupatents. And the main reason I object to it is that the market for educational software is so thin and fragile (due to the thin profit margins) that assertion of a patent like this one can cripple the marketplace, leaving consumers (universities in this case) with few choices. This will destroy innovation in the teaching and learning space. Therefore, but fighting against edupatents, I believe that I *am* “using my position to make a positive change so that some kid in the Rust Belt can break the poverty cycle and better himself.”
And what are *you* doing to change the world for the better, other than posting flames on blogs you obviously don’t read?
Did you see the faux commercial ads for these?
http://www.blackboard.com/projectng/ads/video.asp?id=Openness
giggle-worthy on many levels
Yeah, the weirdest part is that they are mocking their own product.